#they're just being shitty morals capitalists

[kedreeva]

did you read the CNBC article "Egg prices rose 60% in 2022. One farm griup claims it's a 'collusive scheme' by suppliers"? Given how knowledgeable you are about your own birds, I'm interested to hear your thoughts! I particularly found it weird in the inflation numbers comparison where eggs went up by 59.9% in December while the "poultry" category only went up by 12.2%. Doesn't that seem counter-intuitive since it takes much longer to raise meat vs eggs even with the flu? I'm not trying to grill you at all I just like your blog and would like to see your thoughts on it :)

I have no idea why you think eggs take a shorter time, but meat birds are ready for butcher at 6-8 weeks old, and egg birds are a minimum of like 4 months, if not 6-10 depending on breed.

Don't listen to people (general) on farm groups. I'm in several, and day in and day out I see some real hot takes on stuff and a lot of people who either don't know what they're doing or are doing stuff that's like, actively harmful. The people that know what they're talking about burn out trying to argue with the people that are Very Convinced that they're right as they say the most wrong things. I'm locked in combat to the death in one group over the people there using the phrase "fertile but not fertilized" to describe an infertile/unfertilized egg. There's literally no such thing as "fertile but unfertilized." An egg is infertile or fertile, or it's unfertilized or fertilized. But by golly you cannot convince them this is the case, even directing them to google to check for themselves. I've seen med recs for overdoses and underdoses. I had one lady tell me she poured some injectable meds under her bird's wing, and flat out refuse to give more via injection or buy the pour-on version because didn't "want to overdose him." MA'AM you didn't DOSE him!!! What you did was the equivalent of pouring cough syrup on your hand. I chased my own tail for WEEKS with a lady that INSISTED 12 accidental fires in a single year, across all the farms in the US (you know, the 2.5 million farms in the US), meant that there was a government conspiracy to cause a food shortage, and that's why she kept chickens. You might be able to find A Person on those groups that knows anything correct, but the groups at large are often not great for anything other than sharing cute pics and finding homes for excess birds.

Now don't get me wrong, if a company CAN charge a little more for something and get away with it, they're probably gonna try, and I'm sure that some of that is involved, in some places more heavily than others. But also we lost almost 58 MILLION chickens, a lot of them egg layers, to HPAI last year, from around march to june (like, for reference, the US has about 300 million egg-type production birds, across ages). There's also a higher cost in fuel, and likely an unwillingness to hire people who have standards about how they're treated factoring in. Given the processing/shipping/distribution time and the requirements (including the cost of materials, testing, cleaning, disposal etc) of sanitizing land and having to let it sit for a period before being able to resume production, that lag and then sept-dec 2022 zone was exactly where I expected the price rise to happen, and at least from what I've seen, it's already coming back down (from $6 to $4 around me anyway) as those lost facilities have reached laying ages. I expect it will keep going down, provided HPAI doesn't devastate the industry again this year.

If you want a visual representation of what the fuck happened last year, here's from the USDA:

So no, I don't think it's weird and also I don't think it's a conspiracy. Shit just happens sometimes, and instead of taking the hit to their profit, they took it out of egg prices because they had an excuse to raise them to cover costs and possibly make extra while people were tolerant. That's not really a conspiracy in my book, it's just capitalizing on a thing that happened. you know. like capitalists.

[it-may-be-dull-but-im-determined]

As it's also totally valid if you do happen to prefer contact lenses though, you don't have to actually buy those via your optician either - once you have your prescription and have trialled a lens brand you know works for you, there are plenty of much cheaper generics out there that you can brand match online (I use Everclears via VisionDirect in the UK) and then double checked they were safe with my optician next time I had an appt.

can we talk about how literally 64% of people wear glasses, and yet we NEVER see them in movies/tv unless it's on some nerdy or uncool character? why do we adhere to such a weird beauty standard that subconsciously makes us feel bad for,, not being able to see???

[yeetspace]

"bad people age worse" is a mean and shitty take that only plays into eugenicist ideas of "appearance/ability = moral worth." you're not being progressive claiming good people age better. hard work ages the body. stress ages the body. tons of good people never make it to old age due to the stresses of poverty. tons of cruel people reach old age due to the privileges of wealth granting access to better food, better rest and medical care. PLEASE stop spreading the idea of moral failings corrupting appearance, it has no basis in science and rebranding eugenics in a fun little leftist hat is an asshole move

This is pure fucking waffles and pancakes type shit like what the fuck do you want me to say? Cuz I fully agree with you and if something was said in passing that vaguely alluded to that idea that I don't even believe, let alone believe I've said this in the first place and if so I apologize as I fully know that the appearance of one person is not indicative of anything as that's just how the person was born. Literally just as simple as this, I don't believe this so blame the society that cultivated my language to make what IG must've been a phrase that most likely was said in passing that just inherently relies on the ableism? The thing I also feel every day?

It's very obvious by the politics I espouse I agree with you so I have literally no fucking knowledge of ever equating age of bad people and aging badly. The only concept that I've said that's vaguely like that that you might have misinterpreted as such is I don't even know because I don't think I've mentioned anything like that but like:

Bad people literally physically end up looking younger and better with age because of the resources they garnered through that kind of vile mindless gain that bad people get because all bad people are capitalists at the very least, and then separately because they don't have all that stress of worrying about what the fuck the bad people are doing because THEY'RE the bad people doing those things causing stress so they just get to have fun about it. I literally look like I'm fucking like mid-twenties I'm not even 20 YET. So yeah I know And agree with you on it so I don't know what the fuck you're on about. I'm just coming back to you with the exact same energies I'm feeling like I'm getting here

[alexandraisyes]

Who is the main villain/villains in all your TSAMS AUs?

Ohhh that's tricky because not every story has a villain. Antagaonist? Sure, but nothing is ever black and white. However I'll indulge you.

Highly Unconventional: Moon is probably who I would label as the main antagonist, even if it wasn't on purpose, he did still kill Sun's cats. He's an asshole, but he was trying so hard to be patient and understanding. Everyone has their limits. Later on, we have an actual villain, but that's private information for now.

Sinker AU: Whaling and major fishing companies. There's not a selective villain, it's just the corrupt capitalistic assholes who hunted most local mers to extinction. That and the corrupt upper class who specifically put out bounties for mers to keep as "pets".

Twisted Celestials: There really isn't one here, unless you want to consider the environment the main antagonist haha. Actually, probably Lunar. He's a little bit too possessive of Eclipse. Not really his fault, but it does cause a lot of head ache and doesn't get better until KC.

Cage AU: Eclipse. Eclipse for reasons I cannot utter on this account. Eclipse for reasons that break my fucking heart (in the best way possible) because he's my favorite. Fucking Eclipse.

R E S E T: Monty. He's the one who started everything, he's the one who refuses to change after seeing how much he's hurt everyone.

TSBS Hunger Games: Honestly there's a lot of "minor villains" but they're all just trying to fucking survive. The main bad guy is the Creator, since he runs the whole thing

Human/Family AU: Shitty parents who leave their kids for drugs 👍

Drowning: Eclipse and Moon. *Checks notes* Nevermind just Moon for cheating on Eclipse and being an absent husband fr fr (God drowning is the au i need to rot about more it's so detached from canon you wouldn't even know I was inspired by tsams)

Friends AU: Probably the Creator, since everyone is chill in this AU fr. Maybe the corporates running Fazbear.

Supernova: Oh god there's just so much in this one I'm not getting into it or we'd be discussing moral intricacies all night

Errors in Resentment: Probably Moon for being an asshole and attacking Ruin likeeee wtf Moon bro was just minding his business fr

[yuriswitch]

every once in a while something shitty happens that triggers the adults affected into (rightfully) complaining about the way they were treated by some institution above or a person in power. Each time the main complaint boils down to "I was treated like an immature child that doesn't have to be asked for their thoughts or be explained things to anything at all" and usually don't actually condemn that kind of treatment as much as the fact that a Special Deciding Ubermensch of the Adult Race was the one subjected to it.

I know some people just don't mention these things out of habit or because they're too angry to pay attention to details like that, but it's always so frustrating to see people assume that the way children is treated is completely okay despite the sheer magnitude of the negative difference it makes whenever an adult ends up in that kind of position.

The fact they're expected to suddenly gain everything they were denied by the adults ordering them around is apparently perfectly logical, because having a big number of years magically bestows knowledge, skill and maturity upon you obviously. And not explaining anything to them and never asking them for opinion or just asking them at all is totally not abusive, because mature and good mommy would never do a bad thing, she loves you so much her actions can't be abusive now can they. As some particularly aggressive survivors say, abuse is when someone has the evil kind of difference and therefore isn't normal enough to not cough abuse out as if infected with it like it was some sort of a mental influenza, so I guess if the standard behavior is what normal people do then it has to be morally okay under this funky logic

And just to make sure I get to point you out for not being able to read my rant, I'm not saying here that it's okay to treat adults exactly like 2 year olds or that there should be no difference in how we act around and interact with people based on things like age or maturity in general regardless of body numbers.

What bothers me here is that the reflection "wait a minute, doesn't this imply the way we treat kids is horrible ?" practically never comes. I know most people are neurotypical in a capitalist society that makes all their tendencies towards automatic, effort and consciousness-less existence even worse, but it honestly looks like a lot of you would rather completely turn into a mechanical executor of the life algorithm bestowed upon you by your parents and teachers than actually live like a human being with personhood and awareness and ability to think and act deliberately rather than instinctively. This can't keep going on forever if we want to survive on this burning pile of violence and abuse we call Earth

/Oneesama

[giantkillerjack]

My sister-in-law frustrates me to no end even though we barely ever interact because she keeps inviting my partner to parties with her Christian Republican friends, even though my partner told her not to send an invite to us if those friends will be there. And even though my sister-in-law is bisexual!!

And then she turns around and complains about not knowing how to deal with her friends saying, like, horrible sexist stuff as though that is just some natural unavoidable quirk of having friends!

Like, these Christian Republicans she has befriended don't seem to be kind - they're not even nice a lot of the time! They don't make for good friends, and she doesn't seem happy or supported in relation to them. In fact, she basically only ever talks about how her friends and/or current boyfriend are making her unhappy!

Because here's the thing: The effect of prioritizing 'including your Trump-supporter friends at your parties' over 'being invested in creating a safe space for marginalized people in your home', is that people who DO care about creating those safe spaces... won't wanna hang out with you! Because if you invite both cats and mice to your table equally, only the cats will show!

She's so afraid of losing the shitty friends she has now that she allows them to act as barriers to accessing friends who are invested in her wellbeing in a capitalistic hellscape!

It makes me sad because she's basically trapped herself, and there's nothing I can do to offer help without either compromising my morals or making my partner's life way harder by starting shit with her family.

Like, I consider myself a good friend, yeah? I try really really hard to be one, and it matters to me immensely. I am ride-or-die for the folks I love, and I am invested in being open and vulnerable and radically safe to be around when it comes to building strong friendships that are mutually fulfilling. I have a unique talent for validating people that I have honed for years because I genuinely want to make sure people feel safe and loved and seen.

And if my sister-in-law and I were friends, I could give all of that to her. I would strive to be an example of what it looks like when someone decides to care about you and treat you right on purpose, without expecting anything in return but your mutual respect. She would be family. She would be [Queer] Family. I would see to it that she knew she could call on me when she needed a friend.

But like.

This asshole has invited me to hang out with Trump supporters on multiple occasions.

We ain't gonna be friends.

[docholligay]

There's worse things Midge can grow up to be than a tiktok influencer, right?

I mean she could be a venture capitalist or a landlord, so I guess.

I mean, I make my living on the internet so far be it from me to tell her she can't, but if she did I'd prefer she was a creative: Writer, artist, etc. Or an analyst like her papa. Even if you does like, youtube videos, which I do hate, and lives her entire life making meetings out of what could have been emails, but they're about something--history, art, etc--great!

But like, if she's just spreading bullshit on tiktok to become a spokesmodel for Shein or whatever, yeah, I'm not gonna be super proud of her. And maybe that makes me a shitty parent! But bitch I was hot at 21 too, we just didn't have TikTok so I could embarrass myself in front of thousands with tepid --you know as I'm sitting here thinking about this? The issue is I don't want her to have companies sponsor her. Once companies start sponsoring you, you have to lie in order to get more sponsorship. I don't like it, it feels greasy. Don't get me wrong, coupons, even free product, as long as you aren't chasing more free product, are I think, pretty normal for low level folks. But like..."Jewlet's cooking corner, sponsored by Hershey!" We're gonna have a fuckin fight.

Unfortunately I am not super morally flexible in some ways, and while that is in some ways a boon and laudable of me, and I am rarely (though of course I am human) a hypocrite, but in the bad way, I can see myself being like, "Am i supposed to applaud you getting 40 new pieces of clothing a year?"

But then again, I know the thing on the internet is we're supposed to support our kids no matter what, and I do not get with that exactly. If Jewlet does something for a living that opposes my values system...yes I'm going to think less of her for it?? I mean, I'm not gonna, probably, be like, "YOU CAN'T COME TO THANKSGIVING!!" but if she's taking cash from, oh fuck I don't even know who's all sponsoring that shit now, Tesla, yeah I'm not gonna act like my little baby is living my greatest dream.

And of course, this isn't easy or smooth. If she could somehow convince me that she had integrity while taking cash from, we'll go back to Hershey, great. But I'm not sure I think that could happen, depending on the company, and so, where do we make the line of profiting by bad behavior?

People are gonna come at me with this, because A) they want a bright line and B) they want to believe that unless we are Exxon itself, we are in no way responsible for our contributions to how society words (unless we're using terminology people don't like) but neither of those is true! It's a complicated tangle, but how we choose to engage with things also DOES matter.

[greatwyrmgold]

I just want to vent about my dad on a website I know he doesn't use. (He's a Reddit/Facebook man.)

These are two texts from our D&D group's groupchat. In it, Dad reacts to finding out that WotC hired the literal Pinkertons to intimidate someone who got sold the wrong trading cards by criticizing the guy who the Pinkertons intimidated.

This is typical for my dad. When these tales of corporate misdeeds happen, Dad always defends the corporations. If they are not breaking the law, he takes that as evidence that they're in the right. If they are breaking the law, he tries to downplay the severity of the crime. He's a corporate bootlicker, and I don't think he realizes it.

This bootlicking is a bit ironic, since my dad is a "Don't Tread on Me" libertarian. Well, if you asked he'd say he had disagreements with the Libertarian party, but he's never explained exactly what those disagreements are. Which is actually pretty similar to his relationship with the Republican party; Dad will say he holds Democrats and Republicans in equal disdain, but he's complained long and often about Democrats with their gun control and Obamacare and taxes. By contrast, the worst thing he's said about Donald Trump is that he doesn't protect gun rights.

Now, I don't think Dad actually agrees with the alt-right. He's voiced support for minority rights and stuff, even if it's in a milquetoast "We've basically achieved equality, and also the government shouldn't stop businesses from discriminating because the free market will put them out of business" way. But when he talks about politics, he doesn't complain about conservatives. He complains about liberals.

And he talks about politics a lot. My dad might espouse disinterest in the country's political parties, but he has strong opinions about politics. His political discussions, which he made sure to include me and my brother in, are a big part of why I care about politics as much as I do—and to his credit, he encouraged us to think for ourselves instead of just following his politics. I too was a dumbass libertarian for a while, but when I was presented with new evidence, I could change my mind.

But, well. Having a politically-opinionated dad, while being politically-opinionated in the opposite direction is a bit of a problem. And in case you didn't pick up from the way I described my dad defending WotC and also have not noticed any other political post I've made on this blog, I am firmly opposed to capitalism in general and capitalists fucking over employees (or other individuals who annoy them) in specific. So there's a bit of tension there. And I don't know what to do with it.

So far, I've mostly tried to avoid it. That's successful most of the time, but not all the time. Everything is political; even if my dad wasn't the kind of guy who talks with his kids about the president's health care policy or California gun control, politics would come up sooner or later. The friend in the group chat wasn't trying to be political; he just relayed an interesting news story relevant to the group's shared interests. But corporate malfeasance is a political issue, whether you want it to be or not. Politics are gonna come up.

I guess I could argue with him, point out that WotC's actions are morally bankrupt, no matter how legal they are. Question why making a video about some cards that you bought is grounds for getting goons sent to your house. Hell, maybe I should do that, push back against shitty political ideas. But what would the result of that be? I'd get mad, my dad would get mad, neither of us would change our minds, and it's not like the rest of the group would care.

For now, I guess I'm venting my frustrations on Tumblr. I hope that's a healthy outlet.

[baltears]

we might need to stop framing corpos doing shitty things in pursuit of the bottom line in terms of ideas like 'corporate greed' and instead characterizing them as the inevitable yet unacceptable consequences of a capitalist system. like yeah capitalists suck they're moral vacuums whatever but theyre also just doing what they've been heavily heavily incentivized to do under this system which is pursue profit at any cost bc just eating the fines for malfeasance is always way easier than considering the corporation as a moral agent. greed almost doesnt enter the picture as far as these people are concerned bc they're so disincentivized from acting like human beings when they're at work. the humans involved are not the fundamental problem it's the system influencing their behavior that's the problem

[olderthannetfic]

Irt people demanding boycotting of JKR, the main thing I see is people toting "JKR says that she thinks everyone who interacts with HP in a fandom sense supports her TERF-ness". But the thing is, like.... Okay so what if she thinks that?

First, no amount of fans are going to change her mind, because her TERF-ness is not a fandom problem, it is a HER problem. The thing about TERF ideology is that *everything* supports their ideology. People support HP? They support TERFs too. People don't support HP? People are being pressured into virtue signalling but secretly agree with her.

Second, so what if she THINKS HP fan = TERF? She's wrong. She's factually incorrect. She is, in fact, not saying the truth. We know she is wrong about a lot of things. Let her think whatever she wants. Like I said before, whether or not people are HP fans won't change her mind.

Third, whether or not you choose to buy a product is not activism. "Voting with your dollar" and protesting through what you buy is not a valid form of activism; choosing whether you will buy something based on your own values will not make the capitalist oligarchs stop their capitalist oligarchy. Believing that you can "vote with your dollar" is itself validating the capitalist system. Are you morally wrong for not wanting to buy HP stuff? No, I don't want to buy any more HP stuff myself. But it doesn't make you morally right either.

You cannot force someone to change their minds, you can only set boundaries and consequences. Fans and fandom cannot make her not be a TERF. Not even Warner Brothers turning their backs on the Fantastic Beasts movies will stop her (though I will say it is funny). Only JKR can change JKR's mind, and only JKR can control her own actions. We can hope that consequences make JKR change her actions, if not her views, but we can't count on it.

(an aside: I feel like demanding people to boycott HP is so people can have an easy way to identify a TERF. And I understand: it sucks to have to second guess everything because TERFs coach their words to appeal to others, draw them in, and indoctrinate them. But just like TERFs will pretend they're not TERFs to trick others, you will have HP TERF fans who pretend they are not HP fans and you will have TERFs who were never HP fans to begin with. Then, both groups can point to their fan status and say: "I'm not a TERF! I don't support JKR!" There is no easy way to identify a shitty person because shitty people lie.)

--

You absolutely can vote with your dollar if what you're trying to do is signal that transphobia is bad for business rather than that you hate capitalism.

But yes, simplistic anti-HP stuff will not do anything about the massive TERF problem in fandom and outside of it.

[blommis-writes]

taking into consideration something only by how much of use it could be to you is peak capitalist reasoning btw. even worse when we're talking about living beings.

the capitalist system doesn't care that, say, people die in a factory, as long as they're of use while they're still alive.

did you know, for example, (I already had theories about this and normally I consider my thoughts on capitalism a bit tinfoil hat-ish cause I just hate it so much, but now I'm writing my master thesis on children's literature and have actual written proof) that capitalism is also the reason why newer generations are more and more unculturate and illiterate?

there is an actual lobby of USA and UK editors/publishers that make it so that any piece international children's literature that is not written in UK and USA just. does not reach the big public. because that way children won't have awareness of conditions of the world outside of the Global North's countries. and won't develop empathy towards these other conditions, instead being focused on their own little bubble.

This gives the kids a tendency to not question stuff once they'll grow up, thus they'll perfectly fit into a homongous mass of workers, not asking themselves why they're struggling to survive on their low wage and working themselves to an early grave while their boss is a billionaire that could single-handedly solve world hunger.

(This also makes for a tighter grip of the cultural egemony, i.e. the kid from america that grows up only on america-centric stories will empathize less with, I dunno, a genocide happening in the middle east, because to the him the brown people being killed are just like a far away concept that does not concern him while his usa-centric problem are, and the bad literacy will also make it so that he won't see the intersectionality behind it all, not noticing that the reason why he has to live without a national healthcare system is indeed because his country is giving all its money to the one that's committing the genocide. But the thing is, it's all connected.)

sorry I went a bit off topic but yea. moral of the story: capitalism is to blame for this shitty and dehumanizing reasoning of valuing actual living beings just by how they can be of use like some kinda objects. fuck capitalism. and fuck the US and the UK, just because.

[transmasc-wizard]

Hi I know u like just shared some symbolism from your WIPs but. I saw u said there is More,,,,, and I love symbolism so much so if there's more u would like to share, I'd love to hear it 👀👀

hello there IS more and i am 100% glad to share

rain!! in Rose Librarians!! every time it rains, the relationship between Charlie and Eleanor changes. the first time, Charlie and Eleanor goof off together, instead of being angry and awkward. The second time, Eleanor agrees to work with Charlie to fix the library and stop the monsters, deepening the connection. The third time is the climax of the story, where Charlie and Eleanor agree to help each other truly heal instead of just pretending.

More GFS Foils, bc I love those. Angel is self-preserving and to the point it's maladaptive and hurts them, and Rowan is self-sacrificing and loyal to the point it hurts others. They both are trying to do things "right", but take it way too far.

the books Oliver re-reads can give you some insight into his emotional state! whenever he re-reads his sister's favourite book, you Know he is having unfun brain times, when he re-reads his favourite book he's stressed out, and when he reads his giant textbook about dragons, he's in a rlly good mood. this is consistent across All Five Books because i feel like it

James wearing similar sunglasses to Mack but ironically symbolizes how he's more detached than the rest of them. Mack's sunglasses are directly connected to their emotional & mental state; James' are just... a joke. He refuses to get too deep into anything he feels, and this Will be a point in the VS Sequel i have stewing in my brain (it was supposed to be a standalone,,,)

birds around Hope means godly thoughts are happening, and godly thoughts happening means the abuse metaphor is back ! every time Hope sits and thinks about just how shit their life in the godly realm was, they're surrounded by some type of bird. The most important time this happens, they're near the bird they invented. When they go back to their old home... well. there are birds everywhere >:)

the monster in NT21 is a metaphor for hurting other people to feel better, hence... *gestures to the murder*

The amount of guilt Ace is feeling over being gay will directly relate to the amount of guilt Thalia is feeling over being dead. it's not their fault it's morally neutral and it's something they WILL have to make peace with but they Don't Want To

in DAT, the more cruel and self-centered Nathaniel gets, the less he wears his worker uniform/the more he dresses like the rich capitalists around him.

The Other Ones..... sunlight in a haunted forest is not an invitation of safety. sunlight in a haunted forest represents everything else pretending to be something it is not. that sunlight is unsafe, that man is a monster, Astrophel is not a god but a man and that will catch up to him

on a related note. that one probably didn't make sense but this might: there is very much Icarus symbolism in The Other Ones. Astrophel is oh so curious. Icarus begins to fly. Astrophel feels he can do anything. Icarus gets closer to the sun. Astrophel is trying to be god. Icarus's wax wings are melting. Astrophel forgets he is mortal. Icarus is starting to fall. Astrophel is not sure whether he is man or monster. Icarus has hit the ocean. (Stuff like that, but. yk. drawn out across the book.)

addiction cw: this is a less obvious one i think, but in GFS, for the first 2 books, Corey is addicted to this shitty magic energy drink. (It lets him stay up, and staying up lets him create, and creating lets him stay sane.) in book 3, he's forced away from it. He's also forced away from a lot of other things that are bad for him. But when he gets it back--and those other things, too--he has to struggle with whether or not to use it again. (Does he go back to what's hurt him? He can escape... but now that it's available, does he really want to?)

there is. probably M o r e. but it is getting late and brain is shutting off so that is all :D

[bitchesgetriches]

Hi bitches, I'm a bit nervous to ask this but I'm being genuine I promise. I don't want you to think I'm some biggoted old fool.

Could you please help me understand how sex work isn't exploitative? I hear a lot of people saying "it's just the same as normal work, it's better than my job at Amazon/target/wherever and no one is calling that work exploitative" or "well you wouldn't do YOUR job if you didn't have to either" but like, checkout work IS hella exploitative??? Most work IS hella bullshit that only exists to feed the capitalist machine. I DO fight for a world where work is a choice. I understand why The Right would love onlyfans, but why is The Left lining up to defend it?

Sex work - especially things like onlyfans - is overwhelmingly done by the poor or as a way to escape poverty ("I was being paid shit in my previous job, now I can afford an apartment" is something I hear a lot). But in doing so it transfers all the risks to them, it's essentially turning sex work into the gig/hustle economy, isn't it? You end up on a zero hour contract with no union, health, benefit, maternity protection, in a job that can be hella dangerous and have serious emotional repercussions and requires huge emotional labour and/or disconnect and I don't really understand why we're just cheering this along?

I don't object on moral grounds. Sex is sex. Consenting adults do what you want. People are well within their moral and legal rights to choose to sell sex, (or the emotional labour that comes with it), or photos, or whatever they want - just like they are free to go work for target. I absolutely understand the need to - and support - decriminalisation of sex work, the need to make it safe and secure for sex workers, but I just can't see why ~the world at large~ sees huge numbers of young 18 year old women being herded and encouraged into joining Onlyfans - in several cases with people saying "can't wait for you to turn 18 so you can have an OF" so the patriarchy can pay £3-4 a month to see their tits and people cheer this along? One or two get rich, I'm sure, but who is getting REALLY rich? It's the old white men that own onlyfans and take a 20% cut, as always. It's the patriarchy working as it always has. Allowing one or two women to succeed while holding the rest down for exploitation. Except now it's mixing with the worst bits of 21st C capitalism, too. Surely all OnlyFans is is Uber for Sex work, using the gig economy to de-unionise and isolate workers, strip them of benefits, make them into independent contractors and profit off them?

Sure, it's a step up from kidnapping girls from Romania to have them do porn, but is that really the bar? Can we maybe just stop for a second and imagine a world where rich white men don't get richer off the emotional and physical labour of women? Where the other available work options aren't so shit that a zero-hour career with no employment protections, a limited lifespan, in a dangerous industry doesnt look like heaven in comparison? Sure, you can work for three years, sell your emotional labour, and pay for college. But why are we cheering that instead of asking why this has to happen in the first place? We're fiddling around the edges of the system, giving it a makeover, and rebadging it "female empowerment" instead of actually changing anything fundamental. Poor women sell sex. A few are allowed to break out. Men get to leer at naked women for pennies a year. Rich men get richer. Plus ça change. Not even to mention that because of the ~emotional~ connection that onlyfans gives beyond porn, we're embedding the idea that women are "money in, girlfriend out" machines. I know several girls that won't even *talk* to men in any situation without a minimum $50 fee. And apparently the fact we also have a crisis of men so lonely they're willing to pay this isn't a problem either? Where's our luxury communism dreams bitches?

Bitches, I trust you. What am I missing?

I don’t think you’re a bigoted old fool. Nor a prude! I think you’re incredibly enlightened about the dangers of unfettered capitalism and labor exploitation.

Almost all of the issues you highlight about exploitative sex work can be said about exploitative labor in any industry. Poor people taking shitty jobs that don’t pay enough and enrich capitalist, patriarchal corporate overlords? That happens all over the world in industries from meat packing to clothing sweat shops to, yes, sex work. The exploitation of a person’s body for labor is an ethical stain on our culture at large. It’s why we’re so in favor of labor rights advances including a higher minimum wage, unions, and humane work environments. 

Raising the Minimum Wage Would Make Our Lives Better 

Are Unions Good or Bad? 

Coronavirus Reveals America’s Pre-existing Conditions, Part 1: Healthcare, Housing, and Labor Rights 

Sex work is not unique in that it opens desperate and poor people up to labor exploitation. It’s not even uniquely dangerous to the bodies of workers--John Oliver did a bit on the US meat packing industry recently that made me faint with body horror. 

So we agree that labor exploitation is bad. And it’s something that we should work towards ending in every industry. But I can see why some people would view exploitative sex work to be a different kind of bad. Because sex is sensitive! It can be used to punish and hurt. See revenge porn and the way synonyms for “sex worker” are stigmatized and used as insults throughout society. 

Now, a few clarifications. When I refer to sex work, I’m not just talking about cam work on OnlyFans. There are lots of other outlets for many different kinds of sex work. And I’m also not just talking about women sex workers. People of all gender identities and sexualities do sex work, and we should advocate for fair labor practices and safety for all of them. I am firmly pro- decriminalizing sex work so that the industry can be made safe, regulated, and destigmatized in an effort to reduce exploitation. I want sex workers to have the power of collective bargaining! I want them to be protected by law enforcement and our justice system, instead of targeted by it! I want them to pay taxes and have the privileges associated with all tax paying workers! I want them to have the power and protection of a regulatory industry that will purge abusive and violent clients from their field!

I also disagree with the characterization that choosing sex work freely, even out of desperation, is a “step up from kidnapping a girl from Romania to have them do porn.” Human trafficking is not sex work. It’s slavery and torture. Even when the choice is between making $7.25 an hour working at WalMart and making $7.25 as a cam girl, there’s still a choice involved, even if it’s a shitty one. There’s consent. Trafficking victims have no choice, no consent, only violence. 

I honestly don’t want to start a debate here. We’re all on the same page that labor exploitation is bad. So I’ll just end with this: not all sex work is inherently exploitative. Which I guess is your real question!

I’ve mentioned before that I have friends who are former sex workers. Specifically strippers and a specialty dominatrix. As with any job, they had their ups and downs, their good nights and bad nights. But they all agree that they freely chose the work not out of desperation or a lack of other options. And they even enjoyed the work in some cases. If someone prefers sex work, thrives in giving that emotional labor to others, I’m not going to judge and I’m certainly not going to tell them they’re being exploited. It would frankly be insulting, condescending, to tell someone that their choice of work (when it truly is a choice) is bad for them. 

It’s a fine line, but the line does exist. Sex work CAN BE exploitative. But it is not inherently exploitative, as far as I’m concerned. 

[jenovacomplete]

Worker abuse is a problem with the entire gaming industry, not just Pokemon. Boycotting a game won't solve it, either. There's a good post about it here: alterdeath . tumblr . com / post / 699112724076150784/people-really-need-to-understand-the-games

mate, i'm well aware of the state of the games industry, and i don't particularly appreciate you assuming otherwise. i don't know if you meant to come off as condescending here, or if i've got too much vodka in my system, but you don't have to talk down to me like that, okay? it's shitty and rude, especially on anon -- where i can't follow up with you in dms to actually, yknow, have a conversation. you may be correct, but i'm not exactly fond of being used as a demonstration (even if that wasn't what was intended).

and yknow what? pokemon is potentially the worst fucking example you could have chosen for this argument, because yes, crunch is a cultural problem, yes, the games industry is fucked, and yes, it's the devs who get punished when games fail to sell -- except that the reason game freak are being worked like dogs is explicitly for the purpose of churning out a new $80 game right before the holidays, so parents can buy it (and some merchandise) for their kids for christmas. boycotting a single game doesn't do much to inspire cultural shifts, yeah, but yknow what keeps shit the same? selling tens of millions of copies of broken games built with soul-crushing labour. because why the hell would they re-evaluate their strategy when they're raking in record sales numbers?

and, look. i'm not boycotting the game because i think it will fix industry-wide cultural problems -- like i said, i'm well-a-fucking-ware of the problems with the games industry. i'm also very aware of how crunch culture is arguably just a symptom of a wider trend towards hyperconsumption propelled by late stage capitalist interests. but none of this was what the post was about. the post was about me feeling uncomfortable being given something that i expressly did not ask for because it was a part of that soul-crushing machine. because, shocker, i feel similarly guilty whenever i possess other games produced in similar circumstances as well. there may be no ethical consumption under capitalism, but i still have morals -- and the innate psychological need to feel in control of Something. please just let me get mad at my anti-union capitalist father being shitty in peace lmao

[ghost-shipping]

The idea that the only thing you can do when you find out that an author or creator has bigoted views is to immediately stop reading their works feels incredibly infantilizing to me. There seems to be the idea that people are incapable to not be influenced by any reflection of the creators views in their works and therefore it would be dangerous to continue reading it. Which is silly, not everyone has opinions so fragile that they're immediately are going to swayed into changing their beliefs. If there is reason to worry we should just train ourselves to recognize toxic ideas in fiction and why they are bad. But there seems to be an utter lack of confidence in other people's critical thinking skills. How did we get here?!

I think a part of the fear of consuming art made by a shitty person is actually the overwhelmingly prevalent idea of voting with your money/attention in capitalist society. That you should simply abstain from media made by people you dislike to not support them. And this has only been ticked up to the nth degree now that progressive media analysis and critique of what public figures do with their platforms are more prevalent. Prior to the puritan argument there was already a concept that you shouldn't support people you fundamentally disagree with but now people with no idea of how individuals actually engage with media have expanded it to mean this kind of impure media is going to infect you to be just like the less than stellar creator. Which is honestly ridiculous because a) consuming this media without supporting a creator directly is always an option, and b) the vast majority of people who like media made by someone problematic who might have put shitty things in their art do not like it for the shitty things Personally, as someone who read the majority of Harry Potter books in school, I'm insulted at the idea that touching it again automatically makes me transphobic and antisemetic regardless of how critical I am. That I am unable to sit in my own home with books and movies I already own and have for years and enjoy them without being intellectually and morally tainted by them. This kind of shaming also does nothing to deplatform Rowling, which is the only real solution to her behavior, and instead focuses on trying to control what other regular people feel comfortable doing in their free time. Nobody I know likes Harry Potter for the goblins, or treatment of house elves, or the vaguely transphobic one off journalist antagonist. They like it for a variety of other factors and as adults are able to notice things that are either logically inconsistent or morally questionable on behalf of the author because they have critical thinking skills.

[taylortruther]

I'm another fashion anon. And yeah they're close but work ways and mostly with dasha. Now the difference between dasha and wendi is that wendi is more a behind the scenes person when it comes to connection to people in fashion, her influence is bigger in the art world. While dasha is big in both. I never side eye gigi for example for her connection to these people as shitty as it is because it's part oft he fuckin job. But what side eye for her is other things like being friends with other p1

P2 like certain designers who's she personally close to (& her dad for so man disturbing reasons, but that's a whole other story on it's own) and this editor who's her bff who's been accused of sexual assult, racist and abusive behavior etc. And this is just the tip of everything. And all that you could easily find if you do deep research or you know someone or anything like that tbh it's all out there, same with wendi/dasha connections coz they're part of the big people in the room p3

P3 and again this is the world they(ie models) travel in and 98% of these people are fucked up to the core and they came back after a few years like nothing ever came out about them. Now gigi more than martha coz tbh with you Martha is not a big deal and she's like idk how to say this, she's a c level model. Like they get in, but they don't form the same relationships etc and if they do its very very rare. And yes if karlie wasn't with josh she'll still be with these people p4

P4 by being a successful model in this world and being of her standards a whole new kind of level of exposure within the industry comes with it, it's just how it is. It's expected and it'll will never be surprising. I can go on to explaining it more if you want, but i feel like that's enough parts and grammatical mistakes😅

I'm the last fashion anon, i forgot to add that an example of people like this who aren't even models per say, are Derek's bffs Poppy Delevingne and alexa chung. Again it's part of this world and these people are the hidden anna wintour like figures

--- 

sorry this took me forever to post - but thank you for this! 

sadly, i think it’s a universal truth that if you become more and more successful in a field, you become acquainted with more and more shady/questionable people - and you often become shady or morally questionable yourself, if not outright “bad,” either through association or because it becomes easier (or maybe even preferable) to continue pushing boundaries to get ahead. 

it’s not unique to modeling or art. that’s why i said i wouldn’t trust josh even if jared wasn’t trump’s right-hand man: because you don’t get that right by being a good person. like... you just don’t. i won’t go on an anti-capitalist rant, but i think you all know what i mean.